Yes, folks, I do consider myself to be a Liberal, particularly on some key issues. One of them being healthcare. I believe that a single-payer option is the best way to go for the United States. And, to borrow this notion from the Neo-Cons when the drum beat for war in Iraq was at high pitch: if you don’t believe in universal healthcare for all American citizens and that big business should continue to run healthcare, then you’re a traitor to your country and you’re not a patriot, for you’re denying what should be a basic right.

Do you think that campaign would fly in this current political environment?

Signature

Don’t live each day as it’s your last, but live each day anew, filled with optimism, hope and change!

Do you think that campaign would fly in this current political environment?

Short answer, no.

Neocon numbskulls could make their “your with us or against us” philosophy fly because they had the boogeyman of Saddam and then later Al-qaeda to play against.
Additionally, I believe there’s a not insignificant portion of the populace that believes the US should have a large and powerful military force, and use it! They need little convincing about going to war.

I’m afraid there’s nothing about providing medical coverage for anyone that stirs up the bloodlust.

Yes, folks, I do consider myself to be a Liberal, particularly on some key issues. One of them being healthcare. I believe that a single-payer option is the best way to go for the United States. And, to borrow this notion from the Neo-Cons when the drum beat for war in Iraq was at high pitch: if you don’t believe in universal healthcare for all American citizens and that big business should continue to run healthcare, then you’re a traitor to your country and you’re not a patriot, for you’re denying what should be a basic right.

Do you think that campaign would fly in this current political environment?

I also consider myself a liberal, and would prefer a single-payer system. However, telling people to believe in this thing or the other or “you’re not a patriot” only works for Conservatives. It only works for them, because they invented it. They’ve already identified “free-market” insurance as the patriotic choice, and I don’t think you can change their minds because nothing changes their minds. I’ve argued with my retarded family for years, ‘til I was blue in the face (metaphorically not blue man group). They don’t use common sense or facts or data or anything when deciding political issues other than “what does my ‘team’ say.” I hate the stupid conversation our MSM is endorsing with the repub sens and reps. They keep beating the bigoted drum with “we don’t want Canada’s or England’s healthcare.” Even though, they have done zero comparative analysis between what we have now and what we would have if we had Canada’s or England’s system. Not that anyone is even proposing that on the dem side. It is just nutty and full of the same-old politics of fear the repubs are famous for. I know it is tempting to try to use their own ridiculous arguments against them, but they don’t really buy that crap either. They just have to hide behind some sound byte in order to vote no on everything. The American repubs just repeat whatever the machine tells them. Believe me, you can’t threaten them with patriotism; they believe they invented patriotism. Just a bunch of idiots.

I believe there’s a not insignificant portion of the populace that believes the US should have a large and powerful military force, and use it! They need little convincing about going to war.

True. Many are fearful of the rest of the world, but most people don’t see any reason for a good healthcare system when they are healthy. Although just about all of us require medical assistance at some time, it’s only a small minority who do, at any particular moment. We need to make people as frightened of getting sick as they have been conditioned by the neocons to be constantly frightened of the horrid foreigners poised to pounce.

Why resort to jingoism? Cable news is NOT an accurate representation of America. Polls have shown broad support in the general population for national health care for as back as I can remember. Simply support HR 676 and the organizing efforts of single-payer advocates if you want to do something about it.

Yes, folks, I do consider myself to be a Liberal, particularly on some key issues. One of them being healthcare. I believe that a single-payer option is the best way to go for the United States. And, to borrow this notion from the Neo-Cons when the drum beat for war in Iraq was at high pitch: if you don’t believe in universal healthcare for all American citizens and that big business should continue to run healthcare, then you’re a traitor to your country and you’re not a patriot, for you’re denying what should be a basic right.

Do you think that campaign would fly in this current political environment?

The appeal to patiotism as a rationale is a bad logic (but perhaps effective propaganda), and the idea that a poor argument for the war in Iraq is somehow relevant here seems like a non-starter.

Also a logic flaw in stereotyping Neo-cons but that’s probably beside the point.

Yes, folks, I do consider myself to be a Liberal, particularly on some key issues. One of them being healthcare. I believe that a single-payer option is the best way to go for the United States. And, to borrow this notion from the Neo-Cons when the drum beat for war in Iraq was at high pitch: if you don’t believe in universal healthcare for all American citizens and that big business should continue to run healthcare, then you’re a traitor to your country and you’re not a patriot, for you’re denying what should be a basic right.

Do you think that campaign would fly in this current political environment?

[/color]

I think it better to just imply what is real enough. According to a scientific study, in five years 105,000 people could die from lack of health care. The theory is simple enough. Without regular checkups and consultations and required timely treatment one’s life is at increased risk without insurance to afford this routine health care. The science confirms this:

What this obviously means is that more Americans will probably die from lack of health care than are likely to be killed by the best efforts of Ossama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, even if they kill as many Americans as they did in their best year—2001. In fact it will most likely be many times more than the less than 3,000 killed eight years ago. Unless Al Qaeda gets the bomb, a bad health insurance system will be more deadly.

most of the developed world has single-payer (ie HR 676) and it shows: they spend less on healthcare and are healthier. according to the urban institute more than 60 americans die each day due to lack of healthcare - either because they cant afford it or because its denied by the insurance company (ie the 13 yo girl who died because the insurance co refused a liver transplant). no developed country with single-payer has these dire issues.

my favorite empty slogan by private insurance clowns is “i dont want a bureaucrat between me and my healthcare.” they hear this nonsense on rightwing media outlets and recycle it like a squawking parrot.

it just begs the question: “so you prefer an unelected lawyer or accountant hired by a for-profit corporation to save them money by denying you care to be between you and your healthcare?”

So it’s looking like Obama’s not only dropping the public option, he may be using the rejection as a way of distancing himself from the “left.” As Politico reports:

On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

It’s all about “choice and competition,” you see. Forget about the experience of all those funny foreign countries!

PS: When’s the last time a Republican “stare[d] down his own party to get things done”?

Low cost Universal Health Care and Profit are mutually exclusive.
Dividends and (vulgar) bonuses are dependent on corporate profits. If there is anyone who would wish to avoid prolonged and expensive health care costs, it’s the private insurance companies. It would cut into their profits and as these companies are responsible to their stockholders, it is their duty to prevent losses and the only way to do this is by restricting services or an increase in cost. This fact cannot be argued.

If Health Care is a “right” then the only way to structure this is by a non-profit organization, be it Private or Government. This must be the basic starting point!

To the argument that a Government run program would hurt Private Insurance Companies, I say “Let the Insurance companies create a non-profit division and present competitive rates, so that people have a true choice of low cost plans”. At least the emphasis would be on Health Care and not Profits.

beyond economics, the issue is moral. should people’s health be a commodity where they can be healthy if they can afford it or should it be a basic right? of course this issue highlights numerous other issues like property laws, allocation processes, equitable distributions of wealth and so on but all of that can be put aside and the main issue is whether human beings should be treated like commodities or not (answering this should lead us to question the economic system itself).

over the weekend - due to family-get together holidays - someone remarked that someone else’s health is not their concern and they should NOT pay taxes for it, and to do so would be “stealing” from them. i pointed out that under single-payer they would be paying less than they do for private insurance. so right off the bat paying for someone else is cheaper for them. (if i thought rightwingers knew this i would say they are cutting their nose off to spite their face but the reality is they absorbed some empty slogan from a media pundit and are running with it without second thought.) but, i also pointed out that a healthy society is a more productive society. studies have been done on this. so the idea that they shouldnt pay taxes because it doesnt affect them - or that they are not directly impacted by it (leftover market mentality) - is nonsense. they are affected by the health of others and as such to NOT pay for something they benefit from is what is “stealing.” in economics externalities are the norm. and when it comes to public goods and services we are all affected by it and should pay our share, otherwise we are free riders [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem].

of course none of this resonated with them because you cant reason with the unreasonable. and they fell back on the “he’s a socialist” nonsense - which beyond it being absolute BS i think it should be clear to us that “socialism” is a codeword. consider it progression but its obvious to me that when they call him a socialist they are covertly dropping the n-bomb.

Has anyone brought up what beneficial impact a “Universal Healthcare” would have to the individual States?
Would a UHP not do away with the necessity for Medicaid?
All those funds would be freed and the individual States could use this money for Tax reduction, Infrastructure, Business development, etc. If I were a Governor, that would sound like a pretty good deal to me.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

Well it looks like the “Historic” Health Care Legislation is going to amount to deep discounts on Band-Aids, cough syrup, unbreakable combs, and all Dr. Scholl’s products.
In other news, the Government managed to enact tougher laws limiting the amount of time passengers can sit in a plane on the tarmac. Now that’s Government for the people!!